Agenda item

To receive any questions relating to items on the Agenda from members of the public and replies thereto.

Ros Nichols

Good Morning, I’m Ros Nichols a local Tiverton resident, business owner and an accountant by profession. Accountancy and budgeting is all about double entry and balancing the books, I have 2 points to make relating to the increasing charges in the pay and display carparks and raising money.

Previous Cabinet Members and Councillors removed the half hour car parking charges in some of the most used car parks.  These quick turnaround times encourage people to pop into town, grab what they need without having to pay £1.25 for an hours stay. Can the Cabinet consider amending the current proposals of the Economy Policy Development Group to reintroduce these at Tiverton Market and at Becks Square and at the Crediton and Cullompton equivalents?

For example, one of my friends recently needed to collect a prescription for an elderly relative from the Pharmacy. She drove around the town twice to try and get a free half an hour space on street. But to no avail, all the spaces were full. Williams Street Car Park that still has the half hour free stay was full of parents picking up their children from school. So she parked in the car park very close to the pharmacy and considered not paying the £1.25 minimum fee as she was literally going to be 3 minutes maybe 5 minutes at most.

Now if she considered that now, how many folk are going to do that when the minimum fee is £2 for an hour, because they only want to stay 5 minutes or because they can’t afford to add £2 to their shopping bill. Not everyone wants to stay for an hour, if they just want to pop to the post office, one of our remaining banks or even to buy a dozen eggs in the market. The half hour on street parking in Bampton Street is constantly busy, with folk fighting for a space so that they don’t have to pay in the car park.

William Street Car Park is also busy as it still offers half hour for 50p. Wouldn’t it be better to charge a nominal 50p for half an hour and have all the car parks constantly busy rather than drive people to risk it and not pay at all? Please take on board the reasons why people use the car parks. Yes there are those that come to town who want to have a mooch in the shops, grab a coffee and that’s fine for a reasonable hours charge but not to the detriment of people who want to grab and go.

Finally, an idea that was put forward at a previous meeting to fill the gap in the budget, why not offer members of Mid Devon District Council Staff and Councillors who use the multi-story carpark a discounted permit? Even if this was at 50% of the day rate, in my calculations 100 people at 50% would fill a £23,000 hole. Take it from their monthly pay and they are still getting a better deal than the members of the public. If they worked anywhere else in town they would have to pay full price for a permit. If you can’t amend existing contracts make it clear for new members of staff that car parking is not a perk for working at the council, because like everyone else you as an employer as well as a local authority are trying to balance the books.

Nick Quinn

Firstly, concerning Item 5: Financial Monitoring, paragraph 1.2 states that “the purpose of this report is to provide a high level update on any material changes since the last report – Quarter 3 presented to February Cabinet. In the Q3 Report, it was stated that a £467,000 overspend on the Modular Housing development at Shapland Place was “largely due to additional planning requirements”.

Since that report was issued it has become apparent, from written replies to

Public Questions at the last Cabinet meeting regarding this development, that

£332,000 of the overspend (70%) stems from Contract Inflation Rises – not from Additional Planning Requirements. It is clear that Cabinet were misinformed on the cause of this overspend, which is concerning, as the costs of other Modular Home developments may also be affected - but Cabinet have not been forewarned.

Q1. Why were Cabinet given incorrect information in this Q3 financial monitoring report?

Q2. Do other Modular Housing contracts have similar inflation bombs?

Secondly concerning Item 8: Car Parking and Permit Tariffs. The sole basis for the proposed increases in tariffs is given as a cumulative rise in inflation. There is nothing in the reports about the actual costs of the operation of the service or the appropriateness of the recharges being allocated to it. As the result of written replies to Public Questions, it is now apparent that the Premises cost set in the 2023/24 budget at £381,650 has increased greatly from the 2022/23 actual figure of only £221,115. An increase of 73%.

Q3: Why have the actual costs of the service, and the appropriateness of the recharges, not been considered and addressed in this report?

Q4: What is the basis for the very significant rise in the premises cost?

The Leader explained that questions 3 and 4 would be answered at the appropriate agenda item through the Cabinet’s discussion.

The Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation & Housing provided an answer to questions 1 and 2 and would be attached to the minutes. 

The Corporate Manager for People, Governance & Waste responded to questions 3 and 4 by explaining that the cost of this service was considered when the inflationary uplift was calculated, with recharges regularly reviewed within the agreed budget. The Council had suffered from rising utility costs which was due to the cost of living climate. Electricity usage was high for this service as this included powering, for example, ticket machines and lighting as well as other provisions. This was also timed with the coming of a previous fixed price tariff and that maintenance costs would vary year to year.  The maintenance schedule would be provided in writing.

Kate Clayton-White

Good morning. In February we faced a very real prospect of 115% rise in the cost of our allocated space rental. It has been encouraging to note that through representations at subsequent Council meetings, Councillors seemed to have listened to us and amended their fee proposals for allocated spaces for which we thank you. We appreciate that the current Cabinet membership seems to be more open and upfront about their proposals than previous incumbents who sought to hide their outrageous proposals in private part 2 minutes.

We were very pleased to hear the amendment the S151 officer put forward by the Economy PDG on the 16 March, which suggested an increase from £425 to £460 which is much fairer and in line with inflation. Your amendment kicked into touch the other totally unjustifiable suggestion of implementing a backdated increase over the last 7 years when the council had chosen not to increase our fees.

These amendments regarding the allocated spaces were unanimously agreed by the Economy PDG committee and we urge you to accept those. Car parking issues are very important to the people in Tiverton, a major problem at this time has been terrible communication and lack of engagement with the public. Many people don’t read the gazette because it’s so expensive and your website is not the easiest to navigate. So in future, please try to find a better way of communication and let us know where and when car parking increases are to be discussed.

You already use email to tell us when our fees are due, maybe start a Council car parking Facebook page and put up an old fashioned large public information board. Maybe on the wall next to the market toilets. Something for people who do not use social media, then give us time to respond. I’m sure you fulfilled some sort of minimum statutory obligation by posting a tiny little chart of fees in the local paper. But as has been said before, there is a difference between statutory obligation and best practice.

Affordable car parking fees are essential to Tiverton’s economy, affecting everybody and should only ever increase in line with current inflation and no more. They should certainly never be used to raise money to subsidise holes from the budget from unrelated questionable activities. It was for this reason, in February I asked, what was so commercially sensitive about raising car parking charges that the decision making process had to take place under private part 2 rules, i.e. in secret. You did not actually answer my question, you replied that it was because fees and charges were considered by Cabinet, how does that explain the commercial sensitivity and the need for secrecy? We are, however, very pleased to hear that future reviews of the car parking fees will take place in normal part 1 sessions. So my question remains, what was so commercially sensitive about raising car parking charges that the decision making process had to take place in secret?

Sophia Beard

I am Chair of the Tiverton Town Centre Partnership representing the businesses in Town, I am a local resident also. Again, as Jo has said, I think that quite a lot of the points have been quite elegantly put out over the last few meetings and indeed today by the colleagues that have spoken before, but I do have 4 questions that I would like to just bring to the focus again, also this is obviously on a car parking issue.

In discussion over those previous meetings one of the things that was stated by the finance officer was that notification of the car park charge options had been sent out with the council tax bundle last year. My question is, why if you made these decisions, again these are comments pulled from the previous meeting, so if these decisions were made to balance the budget in October, why there was nothing in the pack that was sent out to all residents regarding the council tax this year and all this sort of advertising leaflets that come in that envelope. There was nothing about the car parking charges and the options that people have this year. So the previous comments about how that is being communicated to the wider public, I would really like some justification on that. 

The second question, is that again due to comments made, by the finance officer in previous meetings. There is serious concern that whilst at the previous meeting of the Economy PDG said that they would pass across the responsibility of the annual review to the officers to make sure that it is going to be happening on that basis and the comment made said that it was going to be difficult to apply inflation increases on a fractional percentage basis and if that kind of maths is beyond the scope of the officers in charge of the budgeting for the Council. I would suggest that there are some really good primary schools around here that would be able to help them out with that extra learning.

Because that is not a justification for waiting until inflation rises at 10% or indeed waiting 7 years to actually look at the bottom line of what is coming in. That is unacceptable, So I would like some clarification in that if it is on an increased percentage base on each year if the officer are able to do that maths.

The third question, alludes largely to what has also been said here, the last minute statutory deadlines which is largely what has caused the issues and the furore around this, is not acceptable in terms of consultation with the public. Where there is a duty to deliver a clear customer service. Therefore, I want to ask that the Cabinet and the Council look to give more than the statutory minimum in terms of consultation.

And my final question is would the Cabinet agree today to take the recommendations of the Economy PDG as a starting point in their discussions today as it has addressed some of the immediate needs of residents, but has not addressed those of the businesses and visitors of the town centre as Tiverton still needs to be competitive compared to Taunton and Exeter. And for example, there are 30 minute wait times, from the Economy PDG that was put forward for the evening tariff and we do need that through the day to support the town businesses.

The Leader explained that the points raised by public questioners would be answered at the appropriate agenda item through the Cabinet’s discussion.